Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/1469/2014 on 12 April, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
ON THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL, 2021
BEFORE:
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 1469 of 2014
BETWEEN:
Ashad Singh. ...Petitioner
(By Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate)
AND:
Director, Rehabilitation Tehri
Dam Project and others. ...Respondents
(By Mr. H.M. Raturi, Deputy Advocate General for the
State of Uttarakhand/respondent nos. 1 & 2 and Mr.
Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for respondent no. 3)
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is a resident of Village Kumrada,
P.O. Baldogi, Chinyalisaur, Tehsil Dunda, District
Uttarkashi. Land belonging to petitioner's family was
acquired for Tehri Dam Project. Notification under
Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act was issued on
12.07.2002 and award was made in his favour on
30.09.2004. It is an admitted position that amount
payable as compensation was paid. Petitioner claims
the benefits available under Rehabilitation Policy.
Rehabilitation Policy also provides for various benefits,
including allotment of land in lieu of acquired land,
provided 50% or more of the total holding of a tenure
holder is acquired for Tehri Dam Project. Petitioner
had made a claim before Director, Rehabilitation. His
claim for allotment of alternate land, in terms of
Rehabilitation Policy, was rejected vide order dated
01.03.2011, by holding that since less than 50% of
petitioner's total holding was acquired, therefore, he
is not entitled for the allotment of alternate land
under the Rehabilitation Policy. This order has been
challenged in this writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied
upon the reports submitted by Revenue Authorities,
which are enclosed as Annexure Nos. 9 & 10 to the
writ petition in support of his contention that more
than 50% of petitioner's land was acquired.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent
no. 3 submits that petitioner's brother, namely, Nathi
Singh, who was co-tenure holder, had filed Writ
Petition (M/S) No. 375 of 2014 relying upon the
mutation order passed on the basis of the report of
the Revenue Authorities, which petitioner has relied
upon in this writ petition. He further submits that the
said writ petition was dismissed by a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 06.05.2014,
against the said judgment Special Appeal No. 296 of
2014 was filed and the Division Bench of this Court
affirmed the judgment rendered in Writ Petition (M/S)
No. 375 of 2014. He, therefore, submits that the
judgment would apply to the case of the petitioner
also.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that petitioner's case is entirely different and
petitioner is not relying upon the mutation entry,
which has been considered in Nathi Singh's case.
5. A perusal of the impugned order reveals
that the revenue entries, which have been placed on
record as Annexure Nos. 8 & 9 to the writ petition,
were not considered by Director, Rehabilitation while
rejecting petitioner's claim.
6. In such view of the matter, the writ petition
is allowed and the impugned order dated 01.03.2011
passed by Director, Rehabilitation is quashed. The
matter is remitted back to Director, Rehabilitation to
reconsider petitioner's claim in the light of revenue
entries and judgment rendered in Nathi Singh's case
and pass appropriate order, in accordance with law,
within a period of nine months from the date of
production of certified copy of this order.
7. It goes without saying that such decision
shall be taken only after hearing both the parties.
(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.)
Arpan
